EX PARTE JOHN LEZELL BALENTINE (other)

Texas Judiciary Online - HTML Opinion     Close This Window

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-54,071-03

EX PARTE JOHN LEZELL BALENTINE

ON APPLICATION FOR POST-CONVICTION WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND MOTION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION

FROM CAUSE NO. 39,532-D IN THE 320TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

POTTER COUNTY

Per Curiam. Price, J., issued a dissenting statement which Johnson and Alcala, JJ., join.

O R D E R

This is a subsequent application for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to the provisions of Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 11.071, § 5.

In April 1999, a jury found applicant guilty of the offense of capital murder. The jury answered the special issues submitted pursuant to Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 37.071, and the trial court, accordingly, set applicant's punishment at death. This Court affirmed applicant's conviction and sentence on direct appeal. Balentine v. State, 71 S.W.3d 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). Applicant filed his initial post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus in the trial court on January 22, 2001. This Court denied relief. Ex parte Balentine, No. WR-54,071-01 (Tex. Crim. App. Dec. 4, 2002)(not designated for publication). Applicant filed his first subsequent application for writ of habeas corpus in the trial court on August 21, 2009. This Court dismissed that application and denied applicant's request to reconsider his initial application. Ex parte Balentine, Nos. WR-54,071-01 and WR-54,071-02 (Tex. Crim. App. Sept. 22, 2009)(not designated for publication). Applicant filed this his second subsequent application in the trial court on June 13, 2011.

Applicant presents two allegations in his application. In the first allegation, he asserts that his initial state habeas counsel performed deficiently in preparing his writ application. In his second allegation, applicant asserts that he was deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of trial counsel when his trial attorneys failed to conduct a proper life history investigation in preparation for the penalty phase of his trial. We have reviewed the application and find that applicant's allegations fail to satisfy the requirements of Article 11.071 § 5. Accordingly, applicant's application is dismissed, and his motion to stay his execution is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 14th DAY OF JUNE, 2011.

Do Not Publish